Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2746 (RAJ)

Kalyan Singh v. Judge

2017-12-11

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2017
JUDGMENT : VIJAY BISHNOI, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 23.8.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaisalmer (for short 'the learned Tribunal') in MAC Case No. 66/2006 whereby, it has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for releasing the amount of Rs. 10,80,739/-, the compensation deposited by the respondent-Insurance Company pursuant to the judgment dated 27.8.2007 passed by the learned Tribunal in MAC Case No. 66/2006. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal against the respondent-Insurance Company and the driver and the owner of the utility vehicle No.RJ21 G-3005 alleging that in an accident involving the above-mentioned vehicle, the petitioner has received grievous and simple injuries and in view of that, he is entitled to receive compensation from the owner, driver and the Insurance Company, where the vehicle involved in the accident, was insured. The learned Tribunal vide judgment dated 27.8.2007 has held that the petitioner had received serious and grievous injuries in an accident involving the vehicle which is owned by respondent Chaina Ram and driven by the respondent Dilawar Singh. The learned Tribunal however held the respondents Chaina Ram and Dilawar Singh responsible for making the payment of compensation as assessed and ordered that the Insurance Company shall make payment to the claimant and thereafter recover it from the owner and driver of the vehicle under the pay and recover policy. 3. Separate appeals preferred by the Insurance Company, Chaina Ram and Dilawar Singh against judgment and award have been dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 9th April, 2013 and the award passed by the learned Tribunal has been upheld. 4. Pursuant to that, the respondent-Insurance Company has submitted a cheque No. 190584 dated 10.7.2013 to the tune of Rs. 10,80,739/- with the learned Tribunal. At this stage, the petitioner has moved an application for releasing the said amount, however, the said application was dismissed by the learned Tribunal while observing that as the owner of the vehicle has not filed any undertaking or surety for reimbursing the payment of the compensation to the Insurance Company, the amount deposited by the Insurance Company could not be released in favour of the petitioner. 5. Being aggrieved with this, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 6. 5. Being aggrieved with this, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the appeals filed on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company and the owner and driver have been dismissed by this Court and the compensation has been deposited by the Insurance Company, there is no reason for the learned Tribunal to dismiss the application for releasing the amount of compensation solely on the ground that the owner of the vehicle has not submitted an undertaking or surety for making payment of the compensation to the Insurance Company. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company has submitted that in the award passed by the learned Tribunal dated 27.8.2007, it is clearly mentioned that the amount of compensation shall be paid to the petitioner only in the event, the owner of the vehicle shall submit a surety to this effect before the learned Tribunal then he will reimburse the amount of compensation to the Insurance Company. It is further submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal has been affirmed by this Court also with the said condition remained intact and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for releasing the amount of compensation solely on the ground that the respondent owner has not submitted an undertaking or surety for reimbursing the amount of compensation to the Insurance Company. The claimant cannot be made responsible for the fault of the owner and the Insurance Company cannot take excuse that since the owner has not submitted undertaking or surety for depositing the amount of compensation, the same cannot be disbursed to the claimant. If such a course is adopted, then, the policy of pay and recover will become redundant. 9. Hence, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.8.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal in MAC Case No. 66/2006 is set aside. 10. The learned Tribunal is directed to release the amount deposited by the Insurance Company on 10.7.2013 in favour of the petitioner forthwith. 11. No order as to costs.